About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
article saying republicans would hit steep cuts hitting the pentagon. here is how the defense sector is fairing right now. shall we take a look if we don't have that, we will bring it to you when we do. john harwood, live in washington. hi, john. >> there is no more clarity around this budget sequester situation than there is about the italian elections that michelle was talking about earlier. you've got many republicans as well as democrats saying, either publicly or privately, oh, it's not that bad. if you're a democrat will it cut defense. some say okay, it'll cut spending overall. that's fine too. you have president obama with public pressure trying to convince the american people that bad things are going to happen and put pressure on republicans. he also sent senate remarks in the morning to the white house a way out for both sides. >> democrats, like me, need to acknowledge that we're going to have to make modest reforms in medicare if we want the program there for future generations and if we hope to maintain our ability to invest in critical things like education, research a
the pentagon to allocate the cuts in their best judgment rather than forcing certain cuts on them. that would be one helpful thing, but i think the bargaining power almost requires that we allow it to happen before -- before anybody is going to get serious about their negotiation. i agree. it's a terrible idea, but it's maybe a bad idea whose time has come. >> laura you say it's not next to happen. >> right. >> you say there's no debt crisis. how would you describe the 16 trillion debt. >> so what i would say, look, there were estimates out there at the beginning of the year we needed about $4 trillion to stabilize the debt-to-gdp ratio. we're about 60% of the way there. we do need additional revenue increases or spending cuts over the next decade, but let me emphasize. over the next decade. not at a moment in time when the economy has 7.9% unemployment and is operating under its capacity to the tune of maybe six percentage points below capacity. this is a terrible time to do what needs to be done, and it's also a terrible way to do it because it's like telling a business you have to cut ever
to see you. i wanted to put this up. this is what's on the cover of "usa today." pentagon warns of huge cuts. when you think about what's going on in washington, right now, and you think about the sequester that may or may not happen, and you think about your history in washington, do you think that we will have the sequester? >> andrew, i don't know. i think it's a very complicated situation. i think we had a great opportunity and i actually thought there was some reasonable chance it might happen, which was to have a grand bargain that could have addressed what is really unsustainable and deeply dangerous long-term fiscal situation and i think if we had done that, not only would be useful for the long run but i think could have generated confidence in the shorter run and promote jobs now. now instead of that we have a happen has 5rd process. a sequester we're facing. it's a terrible piece of legislation. it arbitrarily cuts defense and nondefense without thoughtfully doing so. instead of being phased in so we'd have more room for recovery, it hits abruptly. and it's far, far from clea
taking the civilian workers when our country is still at war at the pentagon and putting them on four days a week work is still waste. let those who think they've identified waste and no doubt there are efficiencies that can be found put their proposals forward and let those proposals be weighed in the context of a balanced approach. the question isn't whether we should leave any category immune. the question is whether we should have a balanced approach. and to assume, before anyone has laid out any kind of vision of how that $85 billion a year could be cut, that it must be possible and that everything else has to be ruled out seems to me to be a extraordinarily irresponsible approach. of course there are instances of waste in the federal government. there are also instances of huge unmet needs of diseases where we could find cures that save tens of thousands of people's lives in the next several years. but we're cutting the budget instead and denying ourselves the chances to find those cures. of infrastructure investments where we're risking more bridges collapsing and all we're doi
, you don't care. >> i guess, but i don't. i don't care. >>> the pentagon chief for the f-35 warplane is slamming his partner lockheed martin. he's accusing them of trying to squeeze every nickel out of the u.s. government faults them for seeing the long-term benefits of the project. >>> and tesla ceo eland musk vowing to pay back an energy deficit loan in half the time required by the government. the company receives a doe loan in 2010 and made the first payment of nearly $13 million in december. >> by the way, did you see yesterday -- remember we had -- there was a big debate about the test drive of the tesla in "the new york times." >> yeah. uh-huh. >> and phil lebeau -- >> went well. then edmonds did one yesterday. >> how did that go? >> not so well. the whole interior screen that sort of is the hub of the whole car, it stopped working. >> i don't understand this debate anyway. if you want to go a long trip like that, wouldn't you take a different car? rent a car or -- >> yeah. phil made the point. this is what you do -- >> andrew made the point, too. >> if you feel green and you
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5